Nefarious plan works! State Sen. Wendy Davis, a Harvard-trained lawyer who could pass for a young Sissy Spacek, showed that she was made of some seriously stern stuff, leading a filibuster against a Texas anti-abortion bill that would have left the state with five or six abortion providers by standing and delivering for over ten hours. She was helped out at the end by some brilliant parliamentary maneuvering by Senators Kirk Watson, Royce West, and Cecilia van der Putte (belatedly arriving after attending her father’s funeral) and a boost from the crowd — and, most of all, by the stupidity of her opponents.

This is too complicated to explain in a photo caption, but it was epic.

I wasn’t able to flesh this article out earlier, but for a whole lot of us (now mostly moved on to celebrating today’s SCOTUS victories) last night, the drama we watched play out in Austin TX was about as good as it gets (at least among things that are intrinsically boring.) Here’s a recap from the Texas Tribune:

Republican senators made a last-ditch effort to approve SB 5, voting 19-10, but by then the clock had ticked past midnight. Under the terms of the state Constitution, the special session had ended, and the bill could not be signed, enrolled or sent to the governor. …

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he was “very frustrated” with the night’s results, after officially declaring near 3 a.m. that the bill could not be enrolled. “An unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” derailed legislation that was intended to protect women and babies, he told reporters. “I didn’t lose control of what we were doing,” he said. “We had an unruly mob.”

It’s true that there was a mob there — but Dewhurst was the one leading it. Ya see, there are these things called “rules” — hereabouts, we call them “parliamentary procedure,” but as far as I can tell in Texas they’re called something like “palm tree seizure” — that are supposed to dictate how you run an official meeting. Now, it’s true that if you have a majority you can sometimes get away with ignoring these rules — but if you do that then you give up your moral right to complain when people start hooting at you. You don’t follow the rules, then the rules don’t so much exist.

This is especially true when, after letting a Senator speak for over 10 hours before trying to pull the rug out from under her by cheating, you simply — I’m giving you a choice of sports metaphors here — blow the layup, miss the extra point, forget to touch home base. That’s right, the Texas Senate just flat out got confused. It was not that they couldn’t take a vote while the crowd was hooting; the evidence for that it that the crowd didn’t stop hooting until minutes after midnight, and they took two (or maybe it was three) votes during this time. Nope, the problem was that they didn’t understand that a upholding the decision of the chair on a point of order, calling the previous question, and actually passing the legislation are three different motions. They got the second one done at 11:58 and they thought they were done. Then someone wised up and they got the actual legislation passed at 12:03 — when their right to pass legislation had already expired.

And then — this is the sweetest part of all — they lied about it. They actually revised the time stamp to show that it had been passed before midnight. This didn’t work — in part because the whole thing was streaming live and over 150,000 of us saw it happen. So, seriously, aside from not knowing the rules and not caring about the rules, these people were seriously stupid. So they went into caucus, realized that they would have to fess up, and did so at three in the morning their time.

Why did they do this? If they were going to make up reasons to stop Davis’s filibuster, why wait until the last minute when they could possibly run out of time? Why not snuff it our with many hours to spare so that everyone could go home? Simple: they liked seeing this pretty and feisty blonde woman suffer. This was as close as they could get to torturing her without going to jail. (Someone did apparently firebomb her district office.) So when they delay until the last minute because they want to see her suffer, you will please pardon me if I don’t feel a lick of sympathy for them.

Someone, I’m sure, will be compiling a list of the “palm tree seizure” atrocities that were committed, but in the last couple of hours I noticed these being among them.

They ruled that her mentioning sonograms during debate — a burden recently placed on women seeking abortions by the Texas Lege — was not “germane” (on a related topic) to the bill at hand. This is almost aggressively stupid.

When Sen. Watson, who had tried to appeal a decision of the Chair, was had begun to debate his motion, Sen. Dunbar, the substitute Chair, let someone else sneak in with another motion that should not have been recognized.

When Sen. West objected to this, Sen. Dunbar claimed that his decision was not appealable. When the rule from the rulebook that all decisions by the Chair are appealable was read to him, he denied that what he made had been a decision.

While Sen. Watson was allowed to continue speaking, Sen. Dunbar allowed someone else to interrupt him with a motion that did not have precedence. (If this was something one could do at all, the majority could do it all the time and prevent the minority from speaking. This is why different motions have an order of precedence, as any fool except possibly Sen. Dunbar knows.)

Sen. Dunbar rejected a perfectly legitimate challenge that you can’t take away the floor from a filibustering speaker unless they have been ruled to be non-germane three times, whereas Sen. Davis had only received two such rulings. (This is sort of like an umpire deciding to call a batter out on two strikes.) When it was pointed out to him that the “third infraction” against Sen. Davis was that someone had helped her adjust her back brace — not germaneness — he said that he interpreted the rule differently.

When asked where the rule allowing him to call her out on two strikes was written down, he essentially said “because I say so.” And he did not allow for an appeal.

When Sen. West demanded that the Secretary read the bill before the vote — as was his right — Sen. Dunbar just rejected it.

So, when you hear that there was an unruly crowd in the Texas Lege last night, consider that it would have been much worse if they had all been scholars of parliamentary procedure.

So I have no sympathy at all for Sen. Dewhurst’s claim to the benefits of “order” and “rule of law.” He and his caucus had, frankly, spit (that’s a euphemism) all over both.

By the way: hey, companies that Rick Perry is trying to get to relocate to Texas? If you have women and gays among your work force, you are going to want to stay in California. We’re much more hospitable — and we have a better legislature, too. (Although, admittedly, it could be improved by the addition of Wendy Davis, Kirk Wilson, and Royce West!)

About Greg Diamond

Prolix worker's rights and government accountability attorney and General Counsel of CATER. His anti-corruption work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, leading them to work with the Democratic Party of Orange County Chair and other co-conspirators (who had long detested the internal oversight his presence provided) to remove him from the position of DPOC North Vice Chair of in violation of party rules and any semblance of due process. He also runs for office sometimes.
Unless otherwise specifically stated, none of his writings prior to that lawless putsch ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level. He tries to either suppress or openly acknowledge his partisan, issue, ideological, and "good government" biases in most of his writing here. If you have a question about any particular writing, just ask him about it and (unless you are an pseudonymous troll) he will probably answer you at painful length.
He lives in Beautiful Bountiful Brea, but while he may brag about it he generally doesn't blog about it. A family member works as a campaign treasurer for candidates including Wendy Gabriella in AD-73; he doesn't directly profit from that relatively small compensation and it doesn't affect his coverage. He does advise some campaigns informally and (except where noted) without compensation.

*The issues continue to deminish in front of our eyes. Who believes in God? Will that be the next big debate? Who thinks America Stinks? Who believes that you should Love it or Leave it? Who thinks Black folks should have the vote? Who thinks that Brown Folks should have the Vote? Who thinks that Yellow Folks should have the vote? Who think that Native Americans should have the vote and also have casinos?

This reminds me of when Mother Teresa died the same week as Princess Diana and it seemed the beautiful work the future-saint did was kind of dwarfed. Ironically, I mention this in post regarding abortion …

I just want to say I’m happy to see you give ample attention to Ms. Davis’ valiant efforts so that her heroism is not minimized by the other Good News! Thank you!

Skally, nameless, let me extend an apology for my incomplete analogy. What I meant to convey, that apparently appears senseless, is that when Mother Teresa died, because she died at the same time Diana died, her life was not celebrated as grandly as it would have, say, one week before or one week after Diana’s death. I feel the same for Wendy Davis. Had her filibuster occurred one week before or after today, people would be going apeshit over her accomplishment. Because of what SCOTUS did (rightfully so), Ms. Davis, in my opinion, is not getting her due share of props. It is not ironic, Skallywag, that my analogy compares Wendy Davis, a woman advocating for a woman’s right to choose, with a Catholic almost-saint, who I am betting would not have been so keen on Wendy’s mission. The bottom line: thank you, to Greg, for writing this post. I want Wendy Davis to receive due recognition and adulation for her leadership.

Whatever, skally, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I can’t control the circumstances that inspired Ms. Davis’ filibuster, but I can still admire what she did, and you can’t control my observations, which I know, drives you batshit. Haven’t seen your link; will check it out when I finish working for the day. Have a good one!

Rapscallion

Posted June 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Actually, Mother Theresa was part of the problem–she supported the rabid Catholic orthodoxy of no contraception and was fine with enforced birth–thus, more people living in poverty. She treated the symptoms of poverty but needs to share some blame here.

My understanding is that California has a “stop the clock” provision, defined in one glossary of political terms as “The practice of lengthening the hours of the legislative day, irrespective of the passing of the hours of the calendar day by literally stopping the clock.”

Part of this understanding comes from this inference: if the Legislature didn’t have such a provision, cases would often be filed (and would probably succeed) voiding actions taken after the Legislature had no more power to act. (Neither team in California is shy about dragging in the Courts.)

Why don’t you or skally do the initial research spadework on whether we have a “stop the clock” provision and how and when and with what effect it operates, as you’re the one asserting that “the rules don’t allow it.”

My inference is that a “stop the clock” provision wasn’t used in Texas because (1) they don’t have one or (2) they have one but it doesn’t apply to the expiration of special sessions. It is possible that the reason is (3) — they have one, but the Republicans in the Texas Senate are even stupider than I imagine. Y’all can research that too, if you wish.

skallywag

Posted June 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Diamond: “My understanding is that California has a “stop the clock” provision, defined in one glossary of political terms as “The practice of lengthening the hours of the legislative day, irrespective of the passing of the hours of the calendar day by literally stopping the clock.”

Why don’t YOU do the research before you post speculative, hearsay, “I think maybe so” bullshit?

Greg Diamond

Posted June 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM

I understand that California has a “stop the clock” provision because I have heard reference in the news to their using it. That’s low-level, but it’s research. If you want to deny that, fine, but you’d be contradicting yourself, because you’re one of the people saying that they do it.

I infer from the fact that they use it that it is probably pursuant to a provision because, as I said, I don’t recall Republicans suing over it. And I expect that they would — and successfully.

Coming down to the final minute as Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhearst forced Sen. Wendy Davis to end her filibuster, the legislature was unable to pass a widely decried abortion bill. The legislature was able to accomplish another aspect of their pro-life agenda though, a ban on male masturbation.

One Texas lawmaker joyously announced after the passing of the measure, “this marks a milestone for the pro-life movement! We must protect the unborn any way we can; I’m very proud that my fellow legislators voted to protect life, even in its earliest stages!”

The new measure will go into effect on January 1, 2014 which will make many forms of male masturbation illegal. Exceptions include sperm donations, which now must only be performed at a designated hospital facility.

New rules will also require men to sign an agreement when obtaining prescription erectile dysfunction medication which indicates they will not use the medicine for any purposes other than sexual intercourse with a woman….